December 17, 2010

"... one's stance on the likelihood of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl. I do not believe the intense desire we all feel as Marines to accomplish the mission and protect each other will be affected in the slightest by knowing the sexual orientation of the man or woman next to us.... I believe the reluctance many Marines feel about repeal is based on the false stereotype, borne out of ignorance, that homosexuals don't do things like pull other Marines from burning vehicles. The truth is, they do it all the time. We simply don't know it because they can't tell us."

Get ready, though, for the armchair infantry 'round here to tell you you're wrong, Cap, and that Marines (and the rest of the military) are actually such pussies that they'll fall apart and fail at their duties if a gay Marine or two is suddenly able to stop pretending not to exist and yet keep their career.

I'm not sure that this can't work, but I fear that it will make the military the focus of a new string of scandals and paranoia driven by Gay Rights groups and the press. Gays killed in combat will become suspected victims of hate crimes, and some may actually be.

What I never understood is why anyone should give a rat's ass about labels like sexual orientation or race. When I had a government job, I'd always write human for race and occasionally for sex. Why do gays feel the need to proclaim their sexual orientation? Is it like I'm black and I'm proud? Or the old Act Up gay crowds with their over the top in your face BS? Years ago I heard one Mass. University was going to give teaching hire preferences for gay. Why should you get preference because you're a nancy boy? How do they know you're not straight faking it? Would the powers that be bugger you to prove your gayness or you'd suck off some school official?

Race desegregation caused at least ten years of intense inward focus in the military, cost untold lives in combat and in training, and ended up being such a huge net benefit we can't imagine a military that isn't dominated by black men.

Sex desegregation, two decades on, continues to cause problems and provide benefits at a level where people in the military will privately argue against it. It's hard to imagine a military run by women, for instance.

Will sexual orientation be the former or the latter? Don't know, but at some point we have to pull the band-aid off and see what happens. I just wish peeps would understand prior historical issues properly.

Now, let's have a good discussion of the .45 vs. the 9mm or the M16 vs. , shall we, hmmm?

The problems will not be in actual combat but in the boredom of peace keeping. The non frateralization and no alcohol rules while in moslem countries is already a problem. Boredom causes problems.REMF are despised in military.

That the Lefties are out (no pun) on this with all their usual chickenhawk drivel (and how many of them served?) when military issues arise says a good deal about how much the Left wants this. The full Alinsky once again.

And why, like START, DREAM, ZeroCare, and a lot of other "enlightened" initiatives most of people view with skepticism, it should be approached with a lot more caution simply because they suddenly can't wait to have it done.

The guess here is that not a great many Marines are thinking about a career in fashion design after their hitch is up. I would also think that a career in the Marines has about the same appeal for most gay men. What if they dropped a barrier and no one bothered to cross it?

"That the Lefties are out (no pun) on this with all their usual chickenhawk drivel (and how many of them served?) when military issues arise says a good deal about how much the Left wants this. The full Alinsky once again."

Tiresome, ed. You know very well I'm not a lefty. But I do tire of the sausage fest around here that thinks it's ok to disparage and stereotype people based on their sexuality. I have known several gay and bi-sexual service members who served honorably, one of whom had his career ruined by some scumbag with a personal vendetta against him who took advantage of the unjust and illogical DADT.

You continue to justify your bigotry under the cover of concern for the military, and as long as I'm around here I'm not going to let it stand without comment. You people are as predictable as AlphaLiberal, and getting to be just as boring. If anyone's deploying "Alinsky" tactics regarding this issue, it's you.

"The guess here is that not a great many Marines are thinking about a career in fashion design after their hitch is up. I would also think that a career in the Marines has about the same appeal for most gay men."

I'm sure! That's why there are so few darkies and wetbacks in the service! Those people are just too lazy, they certainly wouldn't consider a strenuous job like the military!

Without killing there is not war. The sole purpose of a military force is to kill the enemy as efficiently as possible. Anything that threatens social cohesiveness at the small unit tactical level is a threat to killing efficiently. Salting these units with avowed homosexuals and females (the other currently fashionable pending "reform" advocated by respectable culture and received opinion) who may freely act out their sexual preferences among male heterosexual populations already under the most severe stress possible is simply insane from the standpoint of promoting small unit cohesiveness. But that's not what it's all about is it? After all, the proponents of these policies are by virtue of their class and culture very, very unlikely to ever see the elephant, are they?

I am a bit worried from the last thread, that if I were drafted, and had to share a foxhole with Titus, he might mentally undress me. Right now, it would be a bit embarrassing. But, hopefully, after boot camp, it wouldn't be that bad.

"Salting these units with avowed homosexuals and females (the other currently fashionable pending "reform" advocated by respectable culture and received opinion) who may freely act out their sexual preferences among male heterosexual populations already under the most severe stress possible is simply insane from the standpoint of promoting small unit cohesiveness."

LOL. You people are so fucking desperate! Now it's "oh our poor, defenseless soldiers are likely to be the victims of evil, predatory homosexuals"?? Hahahaha! The widdle baby Marines might be SEDUCED by the dangerous homosexuals "salted" in their midst!

Anyway, I've got news for you: not only are there already "avowed homosexuals" and bisexuals and straight "curious" and try-sexuals "salted" all over the military, they're peppered and buttered as well.

"In the end, Marines in combat will treat sexual orientation the same way they treat race, religion and..."

Except that disclosing one's race or religion cannot rise to the level of harassment, whereas sharing the intimate details of one's sexuality can and often does rise to the level of sexual harassment as a matter of law.

Where some guy likes to put it is absolutely no business whatsoever of the people around him. Private matters are supposed to be private for a reason. They need to keep such things to themselves.

And shoving one's sexuality in another person's face -- "hey everyone, look, I'm gay!" -- is not an act of someone merely being open with who they are. Rather, it is an assertive act, a political act, an aggressive act that demands that the target acquiesce and agree.

And, it goes without saying, NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ADVANCING THE MISSION OF THE MILITARY. None of it.

"Where some guy likes to put it is absolutely no business whatsoever of the people around him. Private matters are supposed to be private for a reason. They need to keep such things to themselves."

So do you agree, Bender (tee hee) that straight service members should shut the fuck up about their girlfriends, whores, wives, children, and families as well? That they should hide their wedding rings and receive gifts and letters from home secretly and keep all their photographs locked away? Because, you know, all that shit is just "shoving their sexuality in people's faces", after all.

"Rather, it is an assertive act, a political act, an aggressive act that demands that the target acquiesce and agree."

Just like racial integration. What a shame!

It's nice to know that the so-called conservatives are now embracing the tiresome lefty saw "the personal is the political". I didn't know that my very ontological reality was a de-facto political position.

And furthermore, it's sad that the drooling social conservatives have allowed the fucking Democrats to seize this issue. Because if there's anything worse than listening to a bunch of paleo-conservatives fret about the faggots, it's knowing that the Democrats get to pretend to care about gay people and continue to weld the rest of their disastrous policies to the issue of human rights.

Not being gay, I can't imagine what it must be like for a gay man to be naked in the shower with a bunch of big muscled Marines, and bunking with them every night, but I think they should be paying someone for the privilege. A kind of reverse mercenary, where the soldier pays to join. I know I'd pay to be a pro football cheerleader, even if it was very dangerous, but I don't think I could deal with the temptation of that close contact.

I completely understand the desire of gay men to serve their nation this way, but it's got to be a completely different experience for them.

Yep, here come the Pussy Infantry, with extra emphasis on the "infant" part.

I didn't realize so many of you flag wavin' patriots had so little faith in our troops.

I have every faith in our troops that they will handle this professionally and with honor. The distinction that you neglect, is that they don't get to have a say so in who they serve with, so it's up to the civilian population to try and protect them from that which we and a large majority of them think and feel will be detrimental to their ability to serve properly.

Unfortunately, the very tiny minority of people serving who are homosexuals see fit to impugn their role as serving quietly and with distinction. The American public and the military do not want it's service members who are homosexuals to state that they are and frankly would rather not have homosexuals serving in military service at all. The fact that they still can and do so quietly with DADT isn't enough and only seeks to create even more derision where this policy tried to find a balance and compromise.

You want to call me and people who think like I do, pussies? Makes your little pee-pee feel tinglier than normal? That's fine. Doesn't bother me in the least. Do you think the people who know that you are a homosexual are accepting of that to your face, but secretly might cringe at that fact behind your back?

The Marine Corps is an outstanding organization that produces fine leaders, including Captain Nathan. Some of those fine leaders, in positions of broader responsibility and greater accountability that Captain Nathan, do not agree with him.

Personally, I think Captain Nathan may have it right. But when the Commandant of the Corps says that now is not the time, he should be listened to.

I think the Congress should put a sunset on DADT, but give the military plenty of time to implement it. It will take lots of training to do it right, and that's just one more thing layered on to a stretched army. (Which I think is the Marine Commandant's point in the first place.)

Palladian said..."That the Lefties are out (no pun) on this with all their usual chickenhawk drivel (and how many of them served?) when military issues arise says a good deal about how much the Left wants this. The full Alinsky once again."

Tiresome, ed. You know very well I'm not a lefty. But I do tire of the sausage fest around here that thinks it's ok to disparage and stereotype people based on their sexuality. I have known several gay and bi-sexual service members who served honorably, one of whom had his career ruined by some scumbag with a personal vendetta against him who took advantage of the unjust and illogical DADT.

You continue to justify your bigotry under the cover of concern for the military, and as long as I'm around here I'm not going to let it stand without comment. You people are as predictable as AlphaLiberal, and getting to be just as boring. If anyone's deploying "Alinsky" tactics regarding this issue, it's you.

I was not the one who said, "Get ready, though, for the armchair infantry 'round here to tell you you're wrong". This is standard Alinsky and everyone knows it - anyone who hasn't served has no right to an opinion on military matters if it opposes the Left's Gospel. Since I don't believe I've ever given my opinion on homosexuality here, it's quite a leap to assume it.

My problem with open homosexuals in the military is the same as with women in some instances of the military. They tried to have co-ed training during the Clinton administration and it turned into a big mess - too many people couldn't resist the call of the wild and careers were ruined. The problem here is similar - there will be sexual harassment (including the pulling of rank) and unwanted advances, leading to violence. It just won't work.

That's just it. DADT -- we won't ask, and you don't tell, and if we just mind our business and you mind your business, then there is no problem with you serving.

That was a reasonable compromise. That was a compromise that everyone had agreed to.

But to hell with people acting in good faith, to hell with people sticking to the compromise that was agreed to.

No, instead of being able to serve, now the demand is to serve AND shove the gay agenda in people's faces. Now the demand is for gays to LOUDLY serve, to make their sexuality the priority, rather than their military service being the priority.

This isn't about fairness, it is about gay political aggression. This isn't about making the military better, but is purposely about causing dissension and tearing down the military.

Palladian said...Tiresome, ed. You know very well I'm not a lefty. But I do tire of the sausage fest around here that thinks it's ok to disparage and stereotype people based on their sexuality. I have known several gay and bi-sexual service members who served honorably, one of whom had his career ruined by some scumbag with a personal vendetta against him who took advantage of the unjust and illogical DADT.

So what do you think will happen under the auspices of the UCMJ? I know several homosexual personally who are 20 year officers who served with honor and distinction and to the one thing that sexual orientation issues in military will cause larger issues. They tire of the military being a 'sociological experiment'.

You continue to justify your bigotry under the cover of concern for the military, and as long as I'm around here I'm not going to let it stand without comment.

Ah yes, the vaunted champion of the outspoken. You call it bigotry, I call it reality. Your characterization of people who don't view homosexuality or homosexuals in a positive light by calling them bigots is your problem. No one stops you from being one, but at the same time, realistically, no one really wants to know that you are and if they do know really don't want to deal with it. You being a homosexual is not the heterosexuals problem and stop making it one.

You people

You people? Are you serious? Are you serious?

are as predictable as AlphaLiberal, and getting to be just as boring. If anyone's deploying "Alinsky" tactics regarding this issue, it's you.

AlphaLiar is a liar, that's all he does. So you impugn the rest of us in that light too? I would never call you a leftard, but you seem to have zero problem characterizing fellow conservatives in the same vein. Does my sexual orientation trump my ideology? Nope, but apparently you seem to suffer from that malady.

Palladian is saying that the troops will find a way to work the issue out. You missed this point entirely, Methedras. And how the hell would you have any idea what Palladian's or anyone else's friends say about them when they are not around? (Perhaps actually you are commenting on your friends--or yourself.)

For all I know, Palladian is a total asshole in person. But on this little electronic head of a pin, he shows a lot of perspective, humor and generosity. This issue exasperates him. So what. It's an exasperating issue.

"Palladian, Democrats care about gays about a sixth as much as they care about blacks. Voting blocks. That is all they care about."

But of course!

"DADT is gone after Saturday. Whoo-hoo."

Yay! Another terrible Democrat policy struck down!

"And Palladian is wrong, yet again. Hahah"

Wrong about what? Your pathetic party's illusory concern for human rights? The fact that the anti-gay pussy President and his cohorts get to pretend that they supported the repeal of Clinton's DADT policy? I think most of the Republicans are just as pathetic on this issue as most of the Democrats, but at least most of them aren't saying one thing and doing another.

"...but is purposely about causing dissension and tearing down the military."

"By your conduct, you don't strike me as having a great deal of peace of mind, much less authentic joy, either with yourself or with others."

Joy I have in plenty. Peace of mind is harder to come by, with the state of our economy, the expansiveness of the Federal government, the fecklessness of our elected representatives and executives, the instability in the world's politics, and the existence of people like you, who wish fellow Americans to be discriminated against and confined to a celibate life devoid of human joy.

This isn't a question of whether or not the military will follow orders. The question is whether the issues that are associated with this will be a distraction. That's not just out on patrol, it's while they are training in the states, it's while they are back at base camp in between patrols, etc. Added distractions will result in a less efficient force. Probably just slightly less efficient, but do we want that right now, as thin as the military is stretched?

"Even more strangely, out of the few people like that I have met, I ended up f***ing one of them."

Yes, another instance of the "homophobic" or "you're just afraid you're a secret homosexual yourself" tactic.

This tactic posits that being against homosexuals is never a matter of principle or honestly held belief. It has to be that they're all subconsciously homosexual theirselves, so don't be against homosexuals or you are one.

So which is it? Being homosexual is supposed to make people enlightened and on a loftier plane, or is it an insult to be homosexual? Make up your mind.

The truth that no one ever seems honest enough to admit (except in such veiled insults as above) is that homosexual men are usually either men who have perverted and exaggerated sexual tastes or men who grew up for whatever reason meek and afraid of others, especially women. There's nothing to admire about either type, and there's no reason we should be required to treat them other than with polite disinterest.

Instead, they are prominent in politics (and the bravo channel) because it suits the agendas of various politicians who seek to demean our country and its mores.

It's not homosexuals that are the problem. They are harmless. It's the political agenda that uses homosexuality to upend our society by making vice into virtue, and virtue into mockery. It is the nihilism of the post-modernists.

According to the nihilist post-modernists, we're living in a Paul Auster novel where eventually we all are to devolve from being civilized to being naked and homeless, howling at the moon in Central Park.

Of course, your use of the term "brainwash" makes your biases more obvious than a Polish Jump Smock.

Recruits are told what to do and when to do it from sun up to sun down.. Its the best way we know to make a soldier out of them.. that is the connotation I gave the term brainwashing.. nothing more.

The military tries to take the self, ego, whatever you want to call it and redirect it (that's another way of putting it) towards the goal of making a person do something that they would not otherwise do.

Brainwashing has some negative connotations, Ill grant you that, but it is what it is, whether you want to admit it or not.

I was gonna get in here and say something, but it looks like Palladian has it covered.

The bigots always haul out the same arguments. If Harry Truman had listened to the Marine Corps Commandant, he'd have never integrated the armed forces.

Racial integration went through its growing pains, as did sexual integration. The services adapted, because that's their fucking job. When the order comes down, you either follow it or get the fuck out of the way.

This is no different than racial integration, no matter how many "specific" objections you trot out. It doesn't matter in the end.

Homosexuals have, are and always will serve in the armed forces, and to deny that is stupidity incarnate. To say that the military is not up to this is to disrespect the military's ability to adapt to its ongoing missions.

Those who object to the repeal of DADT are bigots pure and simple, driven by their twisted religious convictions.

True story about brainwashing. In the Korean war, many Americans were captured by the Chinese and brainwashed to denounce their country and embrace communism. About equal proportions were navy, army, and air force. The pentagon did a study and one of the questions they asked was, "why were none of the brainwashed Marines?" The answer in the study was that the Marines are already brainwashed in boot camp and the best the Chinese could hope for was a light rinsing.

The truth that no one ever seems honest enough to admit (except in such veiled insults as above) is that homosexual men are usually either men who have perverted and exaggerated sexual tastes or men who grew up for whatever reason meek and afraid of others, especially women.

Big joke out the San Fernando Valley is that if you need to do a casting call for a porn vid, just pick up your phone and call down to Camp Pendleton. You'll have your fill of white walled studs within hours, tattoos and all.

Skyler was my call sign when I was in an A-6 squadron. You don't get to pick your call sign, but you usually end up liking it because it's your name. I use it as a nom de computer. I don't really worry about what you think about it.

I question the integrity of a Marine Corps officer that choose to disagree with the commandant in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post...

Palladian: Get ready, though, for the armchair infantry 'round here to tell you you're wrong, Cap,

I'm hardly armchair infantry. I served as an NCO in a Marine combat unit.

and that Marines (and the rest of the military) are actually such pussies that they'll fall apart and fail at their duties if a gay Marine or two is suddenly able to stop pretending not to exist and yet keep their career.

As usual, you flail your strawman. You AND the Captain don't understand what the real issue is, prefering to label it ignorance or bigotry instead.

Answer this: if gays are billeted with straights, then why not billet men with women too?

I give back what I get. You think I'm going to sit back and "listen" to your armchair psychiatric diagnosis of my supposed developmental shortcomings without responding with disdain? Or "listen" quietly to commenters who I consider generally reasonable call me, by association, a lefty bent on destroying the military, a predator, a pervert, a disease vector, et cetera? Ain't gonna happen.

The Thebans had one such regiment as the core of their entire army. They attributed this group called the Sacred Band of Thebes for making Thebes the most powerful city-state for a generation until its fall to Philip II of Macedon. Philip II of Macedon was so impressed with their bravery during the battle he erected a monument that still stands today on their grave site. He also gave a harsh criticism of the Spartan views of the band:

Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful.

And Fen, I appreciate your service as well, but again, I don't appreciate your bigotry and I'll call you on it. You and I are alike in some ways, we tend to let our perceived enemies have it with both barrels. Maybe it's because you were a Marine and I grew up around Marines.

"Answer this: if gays are billeted with straights, then why not billet men with women too?"

Because men are men, whatever they like to fuck and date. Women aren't men.

Unlike a lot of anti-gay people and extremist gay rights "activists", I don't believe sexual orientation amounts to some fundamental difference like a person's sex does. "Gay" is not some sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens. I don't even believe that sexuality is as binary and rigid (ahem) as people on either side seem to think it is.

I've had encounters of one sort or the other with guys who are, for all intents and purposes, straight. I've had encounters with guys who are, to one degree or another, bisexual, and of course I've had encounters with guys who are gay.

It's because I don't believe in the "separateness" of people with different sexual orientations or who have at times explored various sexual activities that I dislike DADT and other kinds of bigotry so much.

The segregation of the sexes in areas of military life is because of biological and physiological differences between men and women, differences that don't exist between men with different sexual proclivities.

Fen, there is no honest discussion of this from the likes of you or Blackfive, because the root of the problem is religious bigotry on all your parts. Blackfive can go fuck itself, especially after the way they treated Michael Yon.

How do you explain your objections beyond bigotry is the question that should be asked. And I'll be able to find bigotry in all your answers.

Oigonicella: Fen, you seem to be promoting that gays are just another form of woman.

No. I'm saying that mixing genders (male, female, gay, bi, trans) leads to sex between them *within* the unit. That destroys the unit cohesion. They stop responding to each other as a pack and start competing with each other for their lover's attention.

If you haven't actually served in a combat unit, you can't begin to understand what I'm talking about.

"So ChefMojo is too much of a pussy to engage in an honest discussion, as set by Blackfive."

Oh, come on. Blackfive has never been very open, clever, or honest in its discussions of the military. To Blackfive the military is made up of superhuman beings who can only truly be understood by fellow military super humans who all must agree with their view.

I disagree. My Marines are not super human. What makes them special is not that their size or ability. They are big and small, smart and dumb, hardworking and lazy. Heck, some are even democrats, and some rock, some like country, and some like classical. In short, they are perfectly average people (healthy people) whose only common trait is that they have decided to do something difficult. We don't ask them to do anything that is beyond the ability of an average healthy person.

Blackfive likes to put a mystical aura around the military that is neither deserved nor wise. We do the will of the people. We don't own the military, the civilians do, and they set the rules. If they say homosexuals can come in and they can wear pink sashes, then that's what they will be allowed to do.

And that's where the questionaire failed, if it wasn't rigged. If you ask a Marine if having homosexuals in the unit will stop him from accomplishing his mission, he'll always say no. That's because he is taught to not let anything keep him from accomplishing his mission. It might make it much harder to do, but he'll try harder. That's not how to run a military.

While a Marine captain is free to call for the repeal of DADT, his commandant, Gen. Conway, apparently is not and pressure to change his position. Many forget Gen. Conway is only supporting a federal law dictated by congress to the military in 1993.

Those favoring repeal should be careful of what they wish for. Soon our military will look like the co-ed shower scene in the movie "Starship Troopers."

"Because you do fear them. If you did not fear them, you would not object to them."

False conclusion."

I agree. I despise the term "homophobia"; first of all, it's linguistically dubious: homo means "man" and phobia means "fear"... fear of men? Bzzt.

It's also an unnecessary attempt to explain simple bigotry, dislike and hatred by implying some pseudo-psychological diagnosis. I dislike the intrusion of the pseudo-science of psychiatric analysis into simple discourse. It's presumptuous to presume psychological causes and motives of someone's bigotry, as presumptuous as it is for someone like Skyler to presume psychological causes and motives underlying someone's sexuality. Don't attempt to diagnose. Call anti-gay bigotry what it is: anti-gay.

"as presumptuous as it is for someone like Skyler to presume psychological causes and motives underlying someone's sexuality."

It's not presumptuous. It's an observation. I have no skill in or admiration of psychology. I just tell you what I see. If it has webbed feet and quacks, you don't need to be a shrink to say it's a duck.

"Oh fuck you too. The only reason you even care about this is to promote gay marriage."

But I don't support government-sanctioned gay marriage, because I don't support any government-sanctioned marriage. Marriage is a religious and/or personal institution and the State has no right or authority to regulate it, nor the right to force churches and other institutions to interpret it in any way other than as churches and institutions choose. The government getting itself involved in marriage is a clear violation of the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution.

"The government getting itself involved in marriage is a clear violation of the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution."

Hardly. The government has a very solid public policy purpose in recognizing marriage. The purpose is to encourage procreation and to establish paternity rights and responsibilities. This is not a religious purpose.

While a Marine captain is free to call for the repeal of DADT, his commandant, Gen. Conway, apparently is not and pressure to change his position. Many forget Gen. Conway is only supporting a federal law dictated by congress to the military in 1993.

The commandant changed a few weeks ago. The new commandant is General Amos. General officers are certainly allowed to freely express their opinion about laws that affect the effectiveness of the military. That's their job.

Ogil, I say that because I don't know the social context of Macedon of those days, I don't really know the political goings on or the social make up of 2500 years ago. We have a few written sources, but who knows what their agenda was?

We can speculate, but we don't really know. If you were to look back at the United States 2500 years from now and only saw San Francisco in the past few decades, you'd come to some remarkable and wrong conclusions about our society. We have no idea if the stories you cite are accurate or representative. We simply can't know. Your argument gets half a point in its favor, but that's about it.

"So do you agree, Bender (tee hee) that straight service members should shut the fuck up about their girlfriends, whores, wives, children, and families as well? That they should hide their wedding rings and receive gifts and letters from home secretly and keep all their photographs locked away? Because, you know, all that shit is just "shoving their sexuality in people's faces", after all."

This. Sorry about the copy paste job, but I had to because this was very well put. Good job, sir. Couldn't agree more.

Oligonicella: Just as an aside, WTF 'offense' have I done that is smite-worthy? This may explain your inner machinations.

Under the athenian culture you claim we should abide by, I am allowed to kill any who challenge me in public.

Also: "The form of homosexuality that was most common in ancient Greece was pederasty, meaning a relationship between an adult man and a male youth." So you might want to drop the Sacred Band from your argument, unless you are also advocating *that* for military effectiveness?

"When you're done, explain to me why a device thats 2400 years old is relevant today?"

Explain why your POV is relevant and correct. It's merely a POV.

Direct experience from serving as an NCO in the Marine Corps. Sexual relations within the platoon will destroy the bond that makes that unit combat effective. The result will be dead Marines.

You are so wrong. You could issue a challenge, but you couldn't simply kill a dissenter.

Yes, I could. But you miss the point: you're reaching back to another culture thats entirely different from ours and cherry-picking the parts you like, as if you could lift one slice out of it and apply it to our with success.

Bottom line, and this discussion is over:

Your band of lovers was effective, no doubt. But so is our current band of brothers. And you can't have both. You can't have a band of lovers without destroying the bonds that make our band of brothers so effective.

Actually, in Athens the law allowed a man to kill any other man that was found having relations with his wife. The death sentence was rarely executed, though. Instead, it was used as a threat to extract money from the man caught. In fact, there was quite a thriving business of men who would get their wife to seduce a man only to then get "caught" and then use the threat of a death sentence to get him to pay the "cuckold" a suitable amount of money.

That's off topic, but it shows how even when cultures are different, human nature is often still the same. I suspect that even back then, as is attested by several authors of the time, the pederasty and homosexuality were not universally approved. Perhaps there was a very vocal minority, much like today, of pederasts and homosexuals who dominated the political activities. We don't really know, and sadly the modern politics has skewed much hope of getting an objective answer for now.

More than likely, Nathan Cox, an infantry captain in the Marine Corps is told what to say. Having been in the service, I know how it works. As far a racial segregation, there is more racial divisiveness in the armed forces, than in civilian life. Again, something that I've noticed.

From the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) this morning, we get this: 66,342 female veterans report assaults from 2002 to 2008 -- by their band of brothers.

How's that females serving alongside males working out for you?

I'd laugh out loud at those who have never served thinking that openly homosexual soldiers would be no problem, but I can't laugh. There will be major problems that will be solved the old fashioned way. Somebody is going to have their teeth kicked in.

Recruits are told what to do and when to do it from sun up to sun down.. Its the best way we know to make a soldier out of them.. that is the connotation I gave the term brainwashing.. nothing more.

The military tries to take the self, ego, whatever you want to call it and redirect it (that's another way of putting it) towards the goal of making a person do something that they would not otherwise do.

In short, the Drill Sergeants are focused on two supporting objectives:

WRT to topic at hand, I want to associate myself with rien's comments of 1020 PM

To that, I'll add a post I made on Blackfive a couple of days ago:

JakeJJJackson said... Yeah, I know, he didn't say exactly those words; he said something about "distractions" causing deaths and maiming.

I don't know exactly what Commandant said, but if the topic had been women in rifle squads, likely he would have said the same thing. I think his general point is that leaders at the point of the spear hourly make decisions about who must take high risk positions or alternately "burn shit", pull KP, stand guard or walk point.

whatever the choice, members of the team are going to gripe or question the allocation of risks and dirty jobs. adding a sexual favoritism or phobia dimension to that griping just makes the leadership that much tougher.

We went to a friends Christmas party last night and I got away with eating 6 little smokies sausage Hors D'oeuvres. That was my entire Christmas salt allowance. It sounds like this thread got very salty too last night, so I'm glad that I missed it. The party was wonderful and we met many interesting folks. If any were gay, than frankly I don't give a damn.

Wrong about what? Your pathetic party's illusory concern for human rights? The fact that the anti-gay pussy President and his cohorts get to pretend that they supported the repeal of Clinton's DADT policy? I think most of the Republicans are just as pathetic on this issue as most of the Democrats, but at least most of them aren't saying one thing and doing another.'t saying one thing and doing another.

There is only one party that is going to get it done, dragging the other party kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You know damn well if Republicans were in charge it would never even be allowed to come up for a vote.

I think prudence demands a phased approach to elimination of DADT. How about removing it for all parts of the military except for areas where there is total lack of privacy. I'm thinking here of boot camp and combat arms. See how that goes and then either keep as is, back away from the experiment or expand it to the rest of the military.

One unintended consequence of racially integrating the military was the revitalization of the KKK in the 50s and 60s. Imperial Wizard Robert Shelton stated in a Playboy interview that he had no particular animosity toward blacks until he was forced to live with them in the army during the Korean War. What unintended consequences can we look forward to if DADT is repealed?

For those who claim they haven't had *time* to adjust. I disagree. You have had decades to adjust. You have just chosen not to.

The fact remains that gays and lesbians exist - have always existed - will always exist - and it is not your place to try and change that. Homosexuality is now out and open and in your face. Just like you have been in everyone's faces and still are.

Anyway, I've got news for you: not only are there already "avowed homosexuals" and bisexuals and straight "curious" and try-sexuals "salted" all over the military, they're peppered and buttered as well.

That gave me a good chuckle.

Also, I never knew that gays take a "vow" of homosexuality. Too funny.

Palladian's done a good job here. Although I've often found Fen to be a bit of an unnecessarily hostile hard-ass before (with the exception of some very civil and enjoyable conversations on the NPR/Juan Williams fiasco - and no pun intended BTW), I've got to admit I think he makes a strong point about brothers over lovers.

The problem with this messy, yet overly stultified understanding of male social relations is that gays already live their lives having to contend with straights who would feel very threatened by a gay man's personal sexual interest in him. To pose the idea that gays don't learn to live with the same sense of propriety that men have to show women they work with is a very stupid and insulting thing to say.

Other than that, good thread. I enjoyed it much more than anything I've read here.

Skyler: You might as well claim that history doesn't exist because there are no contemporaneous personal claims to back it up.

Weak.

You are taking issue with the pursuit of history itself, rather than an actual claim. If not you'd have backed that up and not referred previously to personal experience as somehow being the only relevant criterion.

@Conservatives_4_Better..., I can't imagine that you've ever been anywhere near a military installation, much less served on active duty. You'd be surprised at how much of one's personal life one gives up when serving in the armed forces.

For those deployed in Muslim countries, the personal life one gives up includes dating local women, reading Playboy or any other periodical that features undressed women, drinking alcoholic beverages, etc. It's even worse for deployed women, or so I'm told.

I like it as well as someone who can't differentiate between restrictions on his own personal life for their own arbitrary sake and restrictions on what's acceptable to do with the local population you're there to serve.

Would not raping the locals and pillaging the countryside also unnecessarily restrict your freedom? What bad reasoning you attempt to throw out there, BM.

Alexander maintained a remarkably close and deep, affectionate, lifelong and somewhat exclusive relationship with another man, in an era where bisexuality was as common as was exclusive heterosexuality.

Your modern prejudice against homosexual relations prevents you from accepting the interpretation that is at least as likely as an alternative that you, for obviously personal reasons, seem to prefer.

@Conservatives_4_Dental..., the very first headache this repeal of DADT gives the field commmanders is what to do about homosexual activity among American soldiersin countries where Shariah law prescribes a death sentence (hanging for men, stoning for lesbians) for such activity.

Everybody, including you, garage, and Palladian, is just shrugging your shoulders and hoping that the commanders on the scene can figure it out.

Olig: The main reasoning here on the side against allowing homosexuals to serve seems to be: We are already bigoted against them and it would cause discord amongst the bigots possibly resulting in violence.

Not very sound reasoning.

Actually, not very sound reading comprehension.

Try reading my points more slowly, then see if you can fairly represent the argument against. Until then, you're just a waste of time.

Ain't life a bitch, Mike? The devil's often in the details. Still works better than denial.

Anyway, since you grace me with a problematic but realistic hypothetical, I'll grant a response.

DADT prevents gays from revealing who they are, what they prefer, what they've done. It's not what keeps them engaging in sexual relations on a base, in a field, etc... The whens, wheres, and with whoms would still be up for regulation by the corps. If they find that to be a headache, tough cookies. The trillions it takes to invade and maintain Iraq and other parts of the Middle East are a headache to my tax policy, monetary policy and foreign policy. Deal. You're tough guys, you can do it.

Olig, here it is again. And none of my words are more than 3 syllables long. Try to wrap your feeble mind around it:

"Your band of lovers was effective, no doubt. But so is our current band of brothers. And you can't have both. You can't have a band of lovers without destroying the bonds that make our band of brothers so effective."

Jesus Fen. Even granting one gay "couple" in a "mixed" company (I read your upthread suggestion about segregated companies), how does this displace a band of "brothers" with an exclusive band of "lovers"? Will the entire company be forced into an orgy together as a team-building exercise? What exaggerations you fancy. Things aren't all black or white/exclusively one or exclusively the other.

I think your question should be "can gay men truly love another man without confusing it sexually". Thats the root of the problem - homosexuality is a peversion of natural love between men. Its like wanting to fuck your father.

Again, this discussion has been like listening to childless orphans insist that bringing incest into the family unit won't damage the family.

You're intelligent enough to have come up with a less offensive response than that, Fen. To pretend that gay men can't have a non-sexual, close, familial interest in another man is absurd on its face. From experience I'm pretty sure that's not true. And to raise that as an argument is as ridiculous as saying that a man can't love his mother in a non-sexual way.

But then again, it appears you really are trying to make such a claim.